[JJ_SO]

It's app. 2.6 times more than the Sigma and depending to some special offers is the difference even higher. I also doubt the Sigma would be better and for sure the bokeh fringing is in a class of it's own, but the price tag is pretty massive given it's neither a spectacular focal length nor a breathtaking fast aperture. On the other side, for some people 35 mm is more of a "standard lens" than a nifty fifty. I'm still using my 35 mm quite often and sometimes only. And it's still cheaper than some Leica 35 mm...

 

For those who want to find out reasons for the price tag: Roger and Aaron did it again, they opened it. Fantastic. True, one could buy two new and one used Sigma for the money, but the Canon will still work, when these 3 are all broken in harsh conditions. Sigma gives a warning about weather resistance: "This lens is not waterproof. When you use the lens in the rain or near water, keep it from getting wet. It is often impractical to repair the internal mechanism, lens elements and electric components damaged by water"

 

A clear warning and I'm aware to disobey it sometimes  <_<

 

I wonder how the higher price tag manufacturers could compete with the Canon. I'm suspecting this is where the very small variance comes from, just a lot of careful design and assembling. I know Nikon is not at the same level.